So our mental constructs do not exist as non-material entities thereby proving that the non-material dimension exists?

Well, our mental constructs exist as chemical and electrical patterns in our brains. As such, they are physical. They can be communicated between individuals by physical means such as speech and writing.

So no, there is no proof that the "non-material dimension" exists. Patterns in our brains in no way suggest the existence of God (caused or uncaused).

Sensory: We see a red shift in the spectra of stars.Quantifiable: We measure the amount of red shift.

We now have quantifiable sensory data. We watch for more red shift, measure more amounts, and build up a body of data. We look for pattens. We make predictions based on the patterns we discern, then look at more stars to see how the predictions turn out. And so it goes.

That's empiricism.

Well of course... one cannot rely on his senses to tell him his senses are valid. It must be tested by good reasoning (ie. mathematical / logical thinking).

One does not measure the amount of red shift in stars to 'tell him his senses are valid.' One does it so one can be precise in talking to others. This helps ensure that everyone is talking about the same thing.

Instead of a scientist saying 'I thought that star looked kind of orangey when I looked at the charts. What do you think? Does it look orangey to you?', followed by a long discussion about how to define 'orangey', the scientist can simply say 'This star shows X amount of shift into the red end of the spectrum.' The other scientist can then observe the star and see if she finds the same thing. If she does, the amount of correspondence can be measured. If she does not, the amount of difference can be measured. Either way, you get more data--more quantifiable sensory data. And so it goes.

So it is not accurate to say, as you do, that one confirms sensory data simply by 'applying logic.' One confirms sensory data in no small part by making sure others notice the same thing.

Which brings us to an important way to test, empirically, whether your 'senses are valid.' One makes sure others get the same data when they use their senses. That's why precise terms are needed and measurements are so important. Another test is to make falsifiable predictions based on what one senses, then get everybody looking.

An example of philosophy's approach would be, say, a discussion of whether God is caused or uncaused. One starts from an axiom--'God exists'--that has nothing to do with 'mathematical observation' or quantifiable sensory data. Given that premise, one applies logic.

It's possible, I suppose to make fine case for either point of view. The result would be a logically valid argument.

But validity and truth are not the same thing. A perfectly valid argument about causes or lack of causes does not obligate God to exist if he doesn't. It does not prove his existence if he does.

All philosophy asks of quantifiable sensory data is that any philosophical argument put forward not contradict it.

Clearly, the methods of philosophy are not those of empiricism.

Until you have designed a test for God, measured God, shown us your math, let us replicate the results, and made falsifiable predictions everyone can test, they remain two distinct ways of going about things.

Call it math, call it philosophy, call it sensory. The point is we are all seeking logical (philosophical) coherence between the physical world, our experiences of it, and logic.

All you have said here is that philosophy and science are two ways we try to understand the world around us, and that both use logic. You have not demonstrated that the two are 'the same thing.' That conclusion does not logically follow from the statement.

You are eager to point out the characteristics the two share. On that basis you jumble terms. But you fail to address the ways in which the two differ.

Those differences are substantial. To overlook them is foolish and, for the purposes of making your argument, logically unsound.

I am saying that you agreed that there must be a logical reason for God.Since a logical reason is agreed to exist for God then the logical reason need exist prior to that of God. Ergo ,God cannot be logic.

Mark24: No, it just is. We construct logical frameworks within which we explore the world around us. There's nothing "logical" about gravity, it just is, we may make logical statements about gravity, however.

And the fact that we see logical relationships between gravity and the objects it governs, and the fact that they are indeed logically consistent with our constructs show that reality is indeed logical even before we supposed to understand it?

God is logic. Therefore His logical reason for existing is found within Himself.

It's like me saying that the law of noncontradiction is valid. The only for syaing that is because it would be a contradiction to say otherwise.

This kind of reciprocity in reasoning is ultimately unavoidable. For example, suppose you want to defend the idea that the senses are basically reliable. It would be fallacious to argue, “I believe in the reliability of the senses because I believe in the reliability of the senses.” That is begging the question. Nevertheless, we should all realize that it is absolutely impossible to argue for the basic reliability of sense perception without relying at least implicitly on sense perception. How do we argue for the reliability of our senses? We accumulate examples of times when our senses gave us true knowledge of the world. This is a perfectly sound induction. But how did we know that our examples even took place? How did we know our senses gave us true knowledge at these times? The answer is obvious: through sense perception. In what other way could one possibly demonstrate the reliability of the senses, except by relying on the senses? This is the kind of circularity or spiraling that Van Til pointed out in all human reasoning. It has nothing to do with begging the question.

Consider the law of non-contradiction. How can it be logically justified? Of course, no one should say, “The law of non-contradiction is true because the law of non-contradiction is true.” That is begging the question. We may say that the law is self-evident, but that is an assertion, not an argument. Every linear argument we muster in support of the law of non-contradiction at least implicitly relies on the law. Sometimes, we argue for the law of non-contradiction by saying that its denial leads to absurdity. But to recognize absurdity we have implicitly to use the law of non-contradiction. At other times, we argue for the law by pointing out that every attempt to deny it requires the implicit use of the law. Once again, we rely implicitly on the principle to support the principle. Because the law of non-contradiction holds as a universal principle for all human reasoning, we can never reason properly without it, even as we defend its necessity. If it is indeed necessary for human thought, we then use it all the time, even when discussing the law itself. To acknowledge this is not to beg the question, it is merely to acknowledge the reality of how we come to know things.

I am going to go to church with my family and spend some precious time with like minded people. When I return i will be going to work and wilnot return until tommorrow.

My apologies for any unanswered posts, but by that time the post limit will have been reached.

So, that's a wrap for me.

I leave you with what I studied last night.

Psalm 119:

1 Blessed are they whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord. 2 Blessed are they who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart. 3 They do nothing wrong; they walk in his ways.

4 You have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed. 5 Oh, that my ways were steadfast in obeying your decrees! 6 Then I would not be put to shame when I consider all your commands.

7 I will praise you with an upright heart as I learn your righteous laws. 8 I will obey your decrees; do not utterly forsake me.

9 How can a young man keep his way pure? By living according to your word.

10 I seek you with all my heart; do not let me stray from your commands.

11 I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you.

12 Praise be to you, O Lord; teach me your decrees.

13 With my lips I recount all the laws that come from your mouth. 14 I rejoice in following your statutes as one rejoices in great riches. 15 I meditate on your precepts and consider your ways. 16 I delight in your decrees; I will not neglect your word.

17 Do good to your servant, and I will live; I will obey your word.

18 Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law.

19 I am a stranger on earth; do not hide your commands from me.

20 My soul is consumed with longing for your laws at all times.

21 You rebuke the arrogant, who are cursed and who stray from your commands.

22 Remove from me scorn and contempt, for I keep your statutes.

23 Though rulers sit together and slander me, your servant will meditate on your decrees.

24 Your statutes are my delight; they are my counselors.

25 I am laid low in the dust; preserve my life according to your word.

26 I recounted my ways and you answered me; teach me your decrees. 27 Let me understand the teaching of your precepts; then I will meditate on your wonders.

28 My soul is weary with sorrow; strengthen me according to your word. 29 Keep me from deceitful ways; be gracious to me through your law.

30 I have chosen the way of truth; I have set my heart on your laws. 31 I hold fast to your statutes, O Lord; do not let me be put to shame. 32 I run in the path of your commands, for you have set my heart free.

33 Teach me, O Lord, to follow your decrees; then I will keep them to the end. 34 Give me understanding, and I will keep your law and obey it with all my heart.

35 Direct me in the path of your commands, for there I find delight. 36 Turn my heart toward your statutes and not toward selfish gain.

40 How I long for your precepts! Preserve my life in your righteousness.

41 May your unfailing love come to me, O Lord, your salvation according to your promise; 42 then I will answer the one who taunts me, for I trust in your word.

43 Do not snatch the word of truth from my mouth, for I have put my hope in your laws. 44 I will always obey your law, for ever and ever.

45 I will walk about in freedom, for I have sought out your precepts. 46 I will speak of your statutes before kings and will not be put to shame, 47 for I delight in your commands because I love them. 48 I lift up my hands to your commands, which I love, and I meditate on your decrees.

74 May those who fear you rejoice when they see me, for I have put my hope in your word.

75 I know, O Lord, that your laws are righteous, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me.

76 May your unfailing love be my comfort, according to your promise to your servant. 77 Let your compassion come to me that I may live, for your law is my delight.

78 May the arrogant be put to shame for wronging me without cause; but I will meditate on your precepts. 79 May those who fear you turn to me, those who understand your statutes.

80 May my heart be blameless toward your decrees, that I may not be put to shame.

81 My soul faints with longing for your salvation, but I have put my hope in your word. 82 My eyes fail, looking for your promise; I say, "When will you comfort me?"

83 Though I am like a wineskin in the smoke, I do not forget your decrees.

84 How long must your servant wait? When will you punish my persecutors?

85 The arrogant dig pitfalls for me, contrary to your law. 86 All your commands are trustworthy; help me, for men persecute me without cause. 87 They almost wiped me from the earth, but I have not forsaken your precepts.

88 Preserve my life according to your love, and I will obey the statutes of your mouth.

89 Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens. 90 Your faithfulness continues through all generations; you established the earth, and it endures. 91 Your laws endure to this day, for all things serve you.

92 If your law had not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction.

93 I will never forget your precepts, for by them you have preserved my life.

94 Save me, for I am yours; I have sought out your precepts.

95 The wicked are waiting to destroy me, but I will ponder your statutes.

96 To all perfection I see a limit; but your commands are boundless.

97 Oh, how I love your law! I meditate on it all day long.

98 Your commands make me wiser than my enemies, for they are ever with me. 99 I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on your statutes. 100 I have more understanding than the elders, for I obey your precepts.

101 I have kept my feet from every evil path so that I might obey your word.

102 I have not departed from your laws, for you yourself have taught me.

103 How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! 104 I gain understanding from your precepts; therefore I hate every wrong path.

105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.

106 I have taken an oath and confirmed it, that I will follow your righteous laws.

109 Though I constantly take my life in my hands, I will not forget your law. 110 The wicked have set a snare for me, but I have not strayed from your precepts.

111 Your statutes are my heritage forever; they are the joy of my heart. 112 My heart is set on keeping your decrees to the very end.

113 I hate double-minded men, but I love your law.

114 You are my refuge and my shield; I have put my hope in your word.

115 Away from me, you evildoers, that I may keep the commands of my God!

116 Sustain me according to your promise, and I will live; do not let my hopes be dashed. 117 Uphold me, and I will be delivered; I will always have regard for your decrees.

118 You reject all who stray from your decrees, for their deceitfulness is in vain. 119 All the wicked of the earth you discard like dross; therefore I love your statutes. 120 My flesh trembles in fear of you; I stand in awe of your laws.

121 I have done what is righteous and just; do not leave me to my oppressors. 122 Ensure your servant's well-being; let not the arrogant oppress me.

Rob, throughout this thread as well as others, instead of addressing the topic, which in case you missed it is "God caused or uncaused?", you simply resort to posting irrelevant nonsense.

Psalm 119 has NOTHING to do with the topic.

Others have tried to address the topic, personally in Message 194, Message 212, Message 231, Message 242 and Message 253 as well as other messages in this thread I have tried to address the topic as well as the false dichotomies, misrepresentations, misdirection and simply false assertions you have made.

I am going to go to church with my family and spend some precious time with like minded people.

Perhaps that is one of your problems, not the fact of spending time with your family, that is essential, but that you spend too much time with like minded people. By segregating yourself within a community of like minded people, you preclude the possibility of learning anything new.

Avoid the like minded people. Throw them away. Seek out those who challenge your positions, who question your assumptions, who question the very Axioms you use.

Rob, I enjoyed reading Psalms, although our Forum Guidelines warn against lengthy cut & pastes. A link would have been better.

I am happy that you are spending time with your family, and with God as you know Him.

Logic is a relative term. There was a time in history that an airplane would have been illogical, since the observations were that everything except birds was restrained by gravity. When we tried to imitate birds, we often fell on our faces.

Likewise, God is logical to some, and illogical to others.

Ravi Zacharias says that in response to "which came first? The chicken or the egg" the creationist would always say that the chicken came first because a Creator always precedes any form or shape of creation.

The question that is often asked, Who made God is valid and expected, but the answer can never be any other creator that is less comprehensive or powerful.

Humans are creators, but we cannot as yet create galaxies, much less chickens. It would logically follow that our question of who made God is silly. The uncaused first cause label would suffice nicely. ;)

Thats my opinion and 2 cents worth. Have a fun day (as opposed to fun-die) at church! ;)

The argument isn't, though, if this is it. You're just waxing eloquent on a metaphor.

It's a common rhetorical turn. One starts with the idea that God is 'good'. From there one asserts that God 'is' anything that the audience puts in that category.

Do they like love? Fine. 'God is love.'

Do they like logic? Fine. 'God is logic.'

Do they like baseball? Fine. 'God is baseball.'

Do they like cartoons? Fine. 'God is cartoons.'

You can do it with anything. You'll get no argument from a friendly crowd that likes love, likes logic, likes baseball, likes cartoons, and likes God. Why would they argue? It all fits. It must be true because it sounds so good.

Once the metaphor is created it can be extended. It is only limited by the lengths the speaker is ready to go.

Give it a good rhetorical polish and it can almost pass for theology.

God is love? Fine. We now conclude God is Emotion Personified.

God is logic? Fine. We now conclude God is Reason Personified.

God is baseball? Fine. We now conclude that God is Home Plate Personified.

God is cartoons? Fine. We now conclude God is Pixar Personified.

Rhetoric like this is gratifying to an audience that enjoys thinking of itself as loving, logical, athletic, and cartoony. It makes God look like the ultimate member of the same gang. It's a convincing way to talk to the already convinced.

But have you said anything?

'Arguments' like this go nowhere once you leave the clubhouse because they nothing rationally persuasive. It isn't logic. It's just running away with a figure of speech.